In article , Russell D.
wrote:


Well, I don't. I started with film, and had the requisite bathroom
darkroom. The only thing I didn't do was develop the film. Going
through the film steps, which you and Tony enjoyed, drove me up the
wall. I hated every bit of it, and nearly gave up on photography. But
more to the point, I disagree completely that the film steps are
*artistically* different from the digital steps. You are doing the
same thing, only with one you are using toxic chemicals, awkwardly
working slowly with trial and error, whereas with the other, you are
working towards identical artistic goals, but working much more
quickly. And the more quickly you can work, the more time you can
spend getting things exactly as you want them. Better yet, when you
fumble around with digital, all you waste is some electron flow and
some time, as opposed to some pricey chemicals and paper.

I respect those who work with film, it's hard. But I still don't think
there is any remaining legitimate reason for it, except for personal
entertainment, or sense of achievement.

Bill, I can take shoot a roll of TriX and develop it in D-76 1:1 and get
one look and then stand develop another roll in 1:100 Rodinal for an
hour and get another look and then develop another roll in coffee
(Caffenol) for yet another look. It's fun. You cannot duplicate the
experience or the look with digital.

*you* might not be able to, but others definitely can.

Film has a unique look. It is not
better or worse than digital. It is just different.

whatever 'film look' you want can be done using digital.